Posted
by
Soulskill
on Wednesday June 13, 2012 @07:11AM
from the like-taking-candy-apps-from-a-baby dept.

theodp writes "TIME reports that four-year-old Maya Nieder's speech-enabling 'Speak for Yourself' app was yanked from the App Store by Apple due to an unresolved patent dispute at the behest of Prentke Romich Company (PRC) and Semantic Compaction Systems (SCS), makers of designated communication devices (not iPad apps). 'The issue of whether or not Apple should have pulled Speak for Yourself from the App Store before the case was decided is trickier. Obviously, Apple would rather be safe than sorry and remove a potentially problematic app instead of risking legal action. The problem, however, is that this isn’t some counterfeit version of Angry Birds.' 'My daughter cannot speak without this app,' writes Maya's mom, Dana. 'She cannot ask us questions. She cannot tell us that she's tired, or that she wants yogurt for lunch. She cannot tell her daddy that she loves him.' If you're so inclined, Dana suggests you drop a note to appstorenotices@apple.com."

A few notes:1) This is not the only way she can communicate, simply the cheapest $299 + iPad). The first paragraph of the article says that much. Later on it does mention that the iPad app is the only one the girl took to right away.2) Although it's still on her iPad, they worry that it won't get app updates and that an iOS update may break it3) The article says Slashdot broke the news, and now Slashdot is pointing at the article that is pointing at Slashdot...

Apps generally don't stop working when an new OS or device comes out. But if at some point in the iPad she has stops working, and new devices are incompatible with the app, she can buy an older one second hand. And restore from iTunes.

Sorry but the sensationalism of taking away an app from a child that needs it just doesn't hold water. And the law, as best as the legal dept see it, must be obeyed.

Now that maximizing shareholder value (or, compatibly, keeping your job) is serving as a no-thought-required stand-in for ethics, though, by acting in effect as a rubber-stamping arm of the government on issues like this, that seems to be less and less in the public consciousness...

Sorry, your post's phrasing seemed to have a certain... disturbing automaticness about it, and I haven't had my morning coffee yet.

Don't get me wrong, I'm up for a bit of civil disobedience myself. But we really don't want to be encouraging corporations to disobey the law, now do we.

Dude, this is Slashdot. In here, we do want that, because, in the name of hyperbolas and long-ass run-on sentences, every parental legal squable or debatable issue must be equated with a civil rights issue, which is necessary for the self-appointed avant-gard-wannabe emotic quasi-intelligentsia to raise themselves into an emotional furor as they seek paper-thin social issues to be upset about.

Logic and common sense are just obstacles for the local e-rebel seeking a cause to fight for to the point of oh-l

I know a number of old Android apps won't work on new versions of Android (yes, I'm aware we're not talking about Android, but I have even less faith in Apple maintaining compatibility).

Then you're in the realm of religion. You know the device you use has a problem, so you assume the problem must be worse on the other device, even though you have no evidence of it.

Second hand hardware is only available for a reasonably short period, in the grand scheme of things.

Depends what you mean by the grand scheme of things. You can still buy Apple IIs on ebay. So she'd probably OK till the kid is in her mid 30s. But it's hard to see her not having developed past the product she was using at 3 years old by then. And in any case, any patents will long since have expired to it's hard to see that there won't be a current solution then.

Really, it is impossible to rationally accept this emotional tabloid "think of the children" story. There's more holes than Swiss cheese.

I'm not familiar with Apple's software, would this restore the exact OS version you were using along with any apps even if they have been withdrawn from the appstore?

No. I mean that the second hand device she bought from eBay would have an older version of iOS on, and she could restore the app (and any associated data) using the iTunes app.

What law? There's an ongoing court dispute that neither side has won or lost yet, and PRC did not ask the court for an injunction to order the app removed. That's notable, Apple didn't receive any order to remove the app, and the complaining company didn't even try to get one. That doesn't say "PRC has an airtight case and Apple could be liable" at all. It says "PRC isn't sure they can get an order and is worried it'll hurt their case if they try and fail, so they're doing an end-run around the judge in the

My original iphone still works fine at over 5 years. It is more of an ipod touch now as I have the phone service turned off but it works great for my 3 year old. The 3GS is still getting new versions of iOS 4 years after it was released.

I agree eventually she is going to need some update for the App. Hopefully the developer can work out their patent issues by then.

A few notes:
1) This is not the only way she can communicate, simply the cheapest $299 + iPad). The first paragraph of the article says that much. Later on it does mention that the iPad app is the only one the girl took to right away.

My wife is a speech language pathologist. Years ago I remember looking at a Prentke Romich tablet she brought home to customize the interface for a student. I couldn't help but think how simple it was for a device that cost around $3k. Just for the basic version from there they go up to nearly $10k.(yes I know there is a bit into putting together the icon sets and sounds.. I'm speaking relatively) Prentke Romich sells to hospitals, and other major medical institutions that have need for such a device, and can afford it, they do not sell to individuals per se, simply because the average family cannot afford one. They charge a lot of money for them. I very much doubt they are concerned with the "actual" needs of people as much as they are their pocket book.

The law IS an appropriate reason. By law, any person who makes, uses, offers or sells something that is protected by a current patent, or who imports into the United States anything that is protected by a current patent, is guilty of patent infringement.

So if Apple believes that the patent(s) has indeed been infringed, the only lawful thing for them to do is to remove it from their store.

The *device* belongs to you - Unless you've stolen it, Apple can't stop by your house and take it away. It's the *content* on the device that is licensed. Perhaps it's semantics (the device is not very useful without content) but the fact remains that the device is yours.

which gets you back to discussion on the broken patent system. Another reason why we say it is broken is because it artificially inflates market prices and prevents the decimation of technology that was previously only available to the richest few.

For now, but the parents' fear is what the future will bring. Will the app be remotely revoked? Will it be compatible with future devices and versions of iOS? Will there be any support/enhancements for the app (no App Store presence presumably means no bug fixes or enhancements)? Also, while the app is there currently for Dana, it's not available any longer for others who could benefit from it.

No. I don't need to wish. Nor do I need to wish to reflash with 3rd party firmware. Or wish to run ad filtering software. Or wish to modify program access limits. Or wish to over/under clock my device. Or... or... or.

I sacrificed video recording, camera, hardware acceleration, gps, and some other stuff when Samsung forgot about my device. The Galaxy S never reached South America. I had to settle for a Galaxy 5. When one day, my carrier publishes that it's available now. They sent me the device. It looks like a Galaxy S, performs like a Galaxy S, the box says Galaxy S, etc. But it's not a Galaxy S, It's a Galaxy SL (i9003 instead of i9000). For some stupid reason Samsung made a device that is actually a bit better than t

Do you also wish that's, that you, you had, you'd, you would, you could, you do, you wi-, you once, you, you could do so, you, you do, you could, you, you want, you want them to do you so much you could do anything [youtube.com]?

I realise this is slightly OT, but it annoys me a little to have Buddhism replaced by cartoon-Buddhism. Buddhism is not Christianity. It's medieval Catholicism in which the patent lawyers and company executives would spend eternity in a nasty place. For traditional Buddhists, any and all engaging with the illusion that is the world of the five senses is karma.

Modern relativism has largely obsoleted religious sanctions - and I'm not about to regurgitate Du

It's medieval Catholicism in which the patent lawyers and company executives would spend eternity in a nasty place.

Actually, in medieval Catholicism patent lawyers could have simply paid for an indulgence with some of the money they earned committing the sin. Pretty slick system really; one gets to do whatever they want as long as the Church gets to wet their beak.

She cannot ask us questions. She cannot tell us that she's tired, or that she wants yogurt for lunch. She cannot tell her daddy that she loves him.

This partial quote is extremely misleading. Apple simply removing something from the App Store does not delete it from devices it is already installed on. They can still use the application. That is part of a hypothetical "What if Apple remote wiped it from our device" which has not happened.

FTFA:
While she already has the app on her iPad, she worries about the fact that Speak for Yourself can’t send out updates and that new iOS updates from Apple could interfere with how the app functions.
It's not about wiping the app, it's about updates.

It's a legitimate concern and a good reason not to update the version of IOS on that iPad. And if this was an Android platform we were talking about and the app developer was legally forced to quit developing the software, you'd have the same issue. An Android update could break the software.

Actually patents are polar opposite. If I file a patent dispute against you, the burden of proof lies with you, you must prove your innocence or I win. And there's very little teeth in the ways for you to recover additional damages from me to cover your defense expenses, the inconvenience, the time your product was pulled off the market. That's the other fun thing, while you are trying to prove your innocence, I can get the govt to pull your product off the market so you don't have any money coming in to spend on lawyers for the ~18 months it'll take. Only the big businesses have those kinds of reserves. Even if you do win, you're down a year and a half of income and have lost a lot of market share that you'll have a very hard time getting back since the new customers have been buying from someone else due to lack of you as an option.

Combine that with near rubber-stamp patent reviews on overly-broad wording, and you have the mess that is the current patent system.

I believe one of the reasons he refuses to upgrade the system is because he now considerings it "his" voice and a new system would have a different voice. He sees at as part of him, which is understandable considering it practically replaces the functions of not just his voice, but also his hands. The fact that it's worked well for him for so long is likely part of the "if it ain't broke" mentality.

Most of Stephen Hawkings system *has* been upgraded, except for the voice synth (which he now considers his voice), and the interface, which he can work much faster then any possible upgrade he would have to relearn...

Historically, devices to help speech and hearing-impaired people to communicate were fantastically expensive. Mainly because they comprised a lot of custom-built hardware that simply doesn't sell in sufficient quantities to get mass production economies of scale.

You needed to be rich and/or have some sort of a connection to an organisation that would fund such a unit for you. Make no mistake, if Stephen Hawking hadn't been blessed with the incredible good fortune to be a genius - and if he hadn't already started to establish himself as an excellent physicist before his ALS reached the point whereby he had difficulty with speech - it's much less likely he'd have had access to the sophisticated technology that allows him to communicate as early as he did.

The iPad, however, is a complete game-changer here. It's truly a disruptive technology [wikipedia.org] - suddenly, reasonably sturdy hardware with a touch-screen that's large enough for someone who hasn't (for whatever reason) got particularly good hand/eye co-ordination can be had for under £400. Pair it with appropriate software and maybe some sort of case and you've got a complete solution for under £1,000.

Yes, the app's expensive. But the whole lot is still a fraction the price of a traditional solution.

I'm not surprised the developers are in court. The companies who produce the custom-built equipment are probably terrified that their entire business model is in the process of evaporating and they'll be left with a product that is basically unsellable.

Agreed. We started teaching our son ASL when he was 6mos. He signed his first sign at 8mos (milk). By a year, he was telling us what he wanted to eat at mealtime and asking questions like "where is my bear?".. Even after he became verbal and even today (almost 11 yo) he still uses some of his retained ASL to communicate when his mouth is full or when he's too far away to yell ("Mom! 5 more minutes!")...

When someone is unable to communicate at all, you advocate a method that allows them to only communicate with select people (those who know sign language) rather than the option she has now which allows her to communicate with a much larger group of people (those who know English)

So the app was written by a toddler, right? No, it was two speech pathologists, Heidi LoStracco and Renee Collender. So it was funded by the four-year-old? No again. So it's the only way she speaks, at least? Nope, just the one she likes the best.

This headline, most of the summary, and the majority of TFA are an appeal to emotion to cloud what's ultimately a bog-standard legal issue. The app's future sale and distribution has been blocked, just like Galaxy tablets, XBoxes, iPads, and many other products that are banned from sale until patent issues are worked out. The point of the story (I guess) is to point out that patent litigation affects innocent bystanders, but this is nothing new, and I personally find the intense spin disgusting. Somehow, the fact that a four-year-old uses this app supposedly makes it okay to copy someone else's research and development? What about the researcher at Prentke Romich whose income depends on the company's speech hardware, who has a toddler at home to feed? What about the toddler whose lawyer parents are working on this case?

I agree and I think it could be written more from the point of view that idiotic patent disputes hurt regular people and the progress of tech in general, but again this article is being written for the plebeians, not people who know what is actually going on behind the mask that the MSM puts into place.

If you want "ordinary people" to understand why a walled garden controlled by a corporate monolith might not always be a good idea, this is an excellent story. If you want "ordinary people" to understand the stupidity of software patents, this is also an excellent story.

If you would like to see software patents stifle all creativity in the tech industry, and don't like the concept of people being able to own what they paid for, then I can see why you would dislike this story.

There's no real research here, only product development. Putting icons on a screen that make a device play back a recorded message when pushed. Not innovative at all, yet extremely useful for anyone who can't otherwise speak.

The real reason for this lawsuit is not to protect R&D, but to protect a racket that hurts kids and tax payers alike. The alternative that these companies sell are $10,000 devices that don't work as well as an ipad+$299 in software ($1,000 total). The only reason they can sell t

The app's future sale and distribution has been blocked, just like Galaxy tablets, XBoxes, iPads, and many other products that are banned from sale until patent issues are worked out.

The difference is that in this case the court evidently didn't order Apple to stop sales or distribution which would be the case for what you're referring to when you talk about other products that are banned from sale.

The app's future sale and distribution has been blocked, just like Galaxy tablets, XBoxes, iPads, and many other products that are banned from sale until patent issues are worked out.

Except it hasn't. The court never ordered the apps sales and distribution blocked - Apple did. This is just another example of why walled gardens are bad, particularly when the gardener likes to take it upon themselves to act as judge, jury and app-executioner.

Why should we be flooding Apple's inbox with requests to put the App back in the AppStore?By doing so, they expose themselves to legal liability and potential lawsuits.

It seems that if you are angry about this and wanted to see this app back in iTMS, you'd write the software creators and patent claimant urging them to settle their differences fairly and amicably in the interests of the consumer. iTMS will promptly put the app back online when instructed to do so and can be assured they will not be sued for doing so.

o Two companies have legal dispute over some speech thing.o Apple is asked to pull app until legal dispute is settled.o Apple: (shrug) OK. (pulls app) (App remains on iPads that downloaded it)o Media: "ZOMFG!!1! APPLE DESTROYS THE ***LIFE*** OF CHILD WITH HANDICAP AND DRIVES MOTHER TO MISERY AND MADE FLUTTERSHY CRY!!!11!2657682365879!!"o Slashdot AppleHateSquad: "LOVE ITSELF HAS BEEN OBLITERATED FROM THE ENTIRETY OF THE PAN DIMENSIONAL MULTIVERSE!!!!!"

Yeah, it was a bad summary. That was the way I interpreted it at first too; I wondered if someone had made an app-designer so simple that even toddlers could be writing them now (hey, it's Apple. This will probably happen).

It seems to me that sign language might be a viable alternative if the only issue is muscular. Granted, not everyone knows sign language (I've been half deaf since pre-school and only know two words), but in many cases it could prove superior to an iPad app.

Because some disabilities can leave you mute whilst still able to understand verbal communication (Deformed larynx for instance) although god knows what disabilities have left you such an insensitive clot.

If you RTFA, its says that she has a speech disorder. I don't know why they don't teach her sign language. I would imagine it would be more expressive and there are plenty of babies and toddlers that have already demonstrated that its easier to learn sign language than to speak.

While their examples are poor, the point still remains. Speech is a vital part of our way or life. Yes, there are a multitude of effective methods of communication, but I would prefer that my toddler say "Mommy, can I have some y

But the manufacturer of the app didn't pull it. the app store did. With iOS that is sufficient to kill the app. On Android, as long as the manufacturer still wants to distribute it, nobody else can stop them because people can get it from the manufacturer themselves.

The manufacturer is unlikely to pull their app before the patent dispute has been settled. Whereas Apple has frequently decided to pull apps on a whim.

Ah but a developer did write for a different device, a much much less friendly device. Probably one with a several thousand dollar price tag. That company patented their work. Now it doesn't matter which other device a developer might code for, it will become the subject of a lawsuit.

And let me add: don't use hardware that only have one manufacturer for something important. This is something I always tell to some management people whet they try to bring a change to Apple devices in their enterprises. You have no option to switch to another manufacturer if for some reason Apple is not able to match your needs, be it there is a shortage in the country, some ban (stupid patents lawsuits) prohibits it from selling here,...... and more

But if it weren't a "managed" platform, the app probably wouldn't exist (except perhaps in some embryonic form, e.g. gcash vs. quickbooks or octave vs. matlab) because the developer couldn't make any money on it. Ugh, I hate saying that. But enthusiasm around free software as a movement seems to have faded, and almost all the great open-source applications are old and mainly on servers.

Did you even read the summary? This is not a case of censorship which Apple has done in the past. This is a case of a legal dispute of patents and ownership. If it was on the Android or WP7 or BB store it would have been the same. Apple will put it back on sale once the developer and claimant resolve their dispute. This is the same knee jerk reaction when Apple pulled VLC. The first reactions were Apple was hostile to GPL when reality was one of the developers of VLC objected to his code being deployed in the App store because he felt it was not compliant with GPL.

Did you even read the summary? This is not a case of censorship which Apple has done in the past. This is a case of a legal dispute of patents and ownership. If it was on the Android or WP7 or BB store it would have been the same. Apple will put it back on sale once the developer and claimant resolve their dispute. This is the same knee jerk reaction when Apple pulled VLC. The first reactions were Apple was hostile to GPL when reality was one of the developers of VLC objected to his code being deployed in the App store because he felt it was not compliant with GPL.

Sounds like a mechanism any cash rich company can use to throttle competition for any applications being distributed via Apple's system. Start a lawsuit and bang! apple will pull the app.

Apple is wrong here. They should have left it up for sale unless ordered to do so by the court.

Patents are a bitch and sideloading would be nice, but what's the alternative? Apple is pretty serious about accessibility [apple.com] and I assume they understand just as well that it's a problem in this particular case.

We are being told that Android is about freedom, that it's for people by people and so on. If Apple is so evil why do they deliver so much better on average in this field?

I love Linux, heck even my username is the name of that thing. Fortunately I don't need anything of that, but if I did I don't know

Let's be clear. It's the app developer that's being sued by another company. If they lose, the app is likely history. Even if had been developed for Android and was still floating around on some app site, that doesn't mean an an Android update wouldn't break it.

If the parents are worried, don't update the iPad. Get another one for general use. The app will continue to function as it always has.

Before too long the dispute will be resolved one way or another. This app will return and if not, another one

Friendly computers are immune to a patent dispute causing previously-installed software to stop working, yes. Poster tried to tug at heart strings by implying this happened (RTFAing tells me this is not actually the case; they won't have a problem unless they need to replace hardware, migrate, etc).

Furthermore, friendly computers are immune to patent disputes allowing someone other than publisher to interfere with the market, prior to a court order.

Did you read and understand the summary? One company claims that another company's product violated their patents. So they asked the store to stop selling it. The store complied. Unlike physical products, a software product can be pulled quickly. If this was Android, it would have been the same.

If you try doing a google search, you'll find plenty of news outlets (including Cult of Mac) reporting instances of Apple screwing developers. I count at least five different cases in the last three years just by a cursory glance on the first few results.

Except that android does not have the same problem because there are multiple app stores, and you don't even need to use any of them to load apps, you can still side-load on every android device.Android can not block you from getting a specific app if the developer wants you to be able to get it. the most they can do is remove it from one of many app stores.

So she cannot speak without it, yet it begs to ask: "How did you speak before your iphone?" iphones haven't been around forever... what would you have done if it never existed... what did you do?

Kids like this either found the thousands of dollars for a custom hardware solution or used paper words and photos, which are much less portable (if you want anywhere near the vocabulary available in an AAC). Or they just went through life with a significantly reduced ability to communicate, which is incredibly frustrating for them and their caregivers.